DOCSLIB.ORG

2021-2022 Proposal Book

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
2021-2022 Proposal Book Department of Fish and Game BOARDS SUPPORT SECTION Headquarters Office 1255 West 8th Street P.O. Box 115526 Juneau, Alaska 99811-5526 Main: 907.465.4110 Fax: 907.465.6094 Email: [email protected] Website: http://www.adfg.alaska.gov/index.cfm?adfg=fisheriesboard.main Reviewer Letter PLEASE READ CAREFULLY July 2021 The Alaska Board of Fisheries (board) will consider this book of regulatory proposals at its meetings from November 2021 through March 2022. The proposals concern changes to the state’s fishing regulations submitted timely by members of the public, organizations, advisory committees, and ADF&G staff. Proposals are published essentially as received, with the exception of minor edits and removal of graphics and web links. If you submitted a proposal and find the published version does not reflect your intent, please contact Boards Support as soon as possible. COVID-19 Mitigation Plan. During its 2020/2021 meeting cycle, due to the COVID-19 global pandemic the board postponed its regulatory meetings to 2021/2022. As we move into the 2021/2022 meeting cycle, both the board and ADF&G intend to return to in-person meetings as identified in this book. However, at the time of this publication it is difficult to predict what complications related to COVID-19 will persist as we approach the meetings. Individuals wishing to attend in-person meetings are advised ADF&G will employ a COVID-19 mitigation plan that complies with the state and hosting community mitigation requirements. While the details of that plan remain to be finalized, it will allow for a range of mitigation measures depending on the status of COVID-19 in the state and meeting community. The plan will also likely involve participant registration and agreement to abide by mitigation measures at the meeting. The mitigation plan will be published well before the board’s October work session and ADF&G will work to provide consistent and clear communication to participants leading up to and during the meeting. For those unable to attend in-person, written comments are accepted before and during the meeting. Proposals. Proposals are often presented as brief statements summarizing intended regulation changes. Proposed changes are also often written in accordance with the Department of Law’s drafting standards: additions are bolded and underlined while deletions are [BRACKETED AND CAPITALIZED]. Reading all proposals in this book is encouraged. Proposals may apply statewide, affect one region or fishery of the state, or recommend change to multiple fisheries within an area. The proposals are grouped by board meeting (see the Proposal Index). Within each meeting, proposals are organized by region, fishery, or species. This book notes if a proposal will be heard at more than one meeting. About two weeks before each meeting, the board makes a “roadmap” with the tentative order 2021/2022 Meeting Cycle Proposal Book Reviewer Letter proposals will be considered and deliberated on. This usually differs from the order proposals are listed here. Then, the board develops an agenda for each meeting to coordinate with the roadmap. Public comment requested. The board relies on written comments and oral testimony. Public comment, in combination with advisory committee recommendations and ADF&G staff presentations, provide the board with useful biological and socioeconomic information. Written comments become public documents. Submit your comments. Online boardoffisheries.adfg.alaska.gov Email [email protected] Fax (907) 465-6094 Mail P.O. Box 115526 Juneau, AK 99811-5526 More about public comments. Comments must be received by each meeting’s deadline (typically two weeks prior to a meeting - see the Tentative Meeting Schedule). They are included as part of board member workbooks, listed in each meeting’s Index of Comments, and posted on the Boards Support website in advance of the meeting. Requirements include: • Received by mail, email, fax, in office, or through the Boards Support website. • 100 single-sided pages or less from any one individual or group. • Fits on 8½” x 11” paper with adequate margins for three-hole punching. If submitted through email, send as a single Adobe PDF. • Web links to external documents or multimedia are not accepted. • Include the author’s name and contact information. • For charts or graphs, cite the source. Record copies. Written materials received after the on-time deadline, including during board meetings, are termed “record copies”. Requirements are the same as above, except: • Comments are not accepted via email after the on-time deadline. • Prior to the start of a meeting, comments may be submitted by mail, fax, or hand delivered in office. • After the start of a meeting, comments may be submitted in person at the meeting. Copies will need to be provided. The actual number of copies needed is posted at the meeting, usually ~25, and may change throughout the duration of the meeting. Comments are also accepted by fax during meetings for those not able to attend. • 10 single-sided pages or less from any one individual or group per proposal until the board begins deliberations on proposals. Once deliberations start, no more than five single-sided pages. Oral testimony. The board welcomes oral testimony at each regularly scheduled regulatory meeting. Testimony generally begins the first day of the meeting, extending as long as necessary. There is a sign- up period for testimony at each meeting, found on the meeting agenda. Each person who wishes to speak is generally allotted three minutes for testimony. Advisory committee, federal regional advisory council, and Pacific Northwest Crab Industry Advisory Committee representatives are generally allotted 10 minutes. Page 2 2021/2022 Meeting Cycle Proposal Book Reviewer Letter Tips for comments. • Identify proposal(s). Clearly state the proposal number you wish to discuss and if you support or oppose the proposal. If the comments support a modification in the proposal, indicate “support as amended” with the preferred amendment in writing. • Commenting on more than one proposal. If making comments on more than one proposal, simply list the next proposal number followed by your comments. There is no need for separate pages or to submit multiple comments. • Explain why. Help the board understand your rationale by identifying factors to take into account when acting on a proposal. • Keep comments brief and clear. Board members are extremely busy. Clearly stating proposal numbers and one’s position with supporting rationale will assist board members. • Follow the requirements. Pages in excess of the page limit and comments not in the proper format will be discarded. Testimony greater than the allotted time will be cut short. • The sooner the better. As a practical matter comments submitted after the board begins deliberations are likely to receive less consideration than comments submitted earlier. • Write clearly. Whether typed or handwritten, use dark ink and write legibly. • Use the committee process for detailed comments. The board considers specific proposals, grouped by subject, during committees as a way to receive much greater detail from the participating public. Public testimony should be tailored to encompass major items of importance. Fine details may be reserved for committee work. • Be polite. Inflammatory material may be excluded or redacted, and public testimony may be cut short. Advisory committees. Advisory committees written recommendations should be submitted in the format prescribed by the board; boards staff can provide the right form. Recommendations should note the number of committee members in attendance as well as other stakeholders in attendance during meetings. Remember, advisory committee recommendations must be developed at a meeting where the conditions of the Open Meetings Act (AS 44.62.310) were met. When providing public testimony, provide commentary and explain the committee’s current discussion. Expressing minority opinions is helpful. Reading off proposal numbers and committee recommendations is difficult to follow; your written comments should cover this sort of summary. For additional information on providing public comment, refer to the Advisory Committee Manual. Additional instructions for advisory committee chairs. Advisory committee chairs are responsible for calling committee meetings to review proposals and provide recommendations. In order to efficiently budget and provide for travel, pre-planning is essential. Chairs are to identify to Boards Support by November 15 if they anticipate an advisory committee representative might attend one of the meetings. Failure to provide early notice may prevent the advisory committee from traveling should adequate funding be unavailable. Special notes. The board applies various statutes and policies when considering proposals. When addressing proposals affecting subsistence uses, the board provides for a reasonable opportunity for subsistence consistent with Alaska Statute 16.05.258 and regulation 5 AAC 99.010(b). When addressing allocations among commercial, sport, guided sport, and/or personal use fisheries, the board applies its Allocation Criteria (AS 16.05.251(e)). When addressing salmon fisheries it may apply the Mixed Stock Salmon Policy (5 AAC 39.220) and the Sustainable Salmon Fisheries Policy (5 AAC 39.222). You may wish to review these statutes, regulations, and policies when preparing comments for the board. See the board’s website or call Boards Support staff listed in this book to learn
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Pacific Marine Fisheries Commission
    32nd Annual Report of the PACIFIC MARINE FISHERIES COMMISSION FOR THE YEAR 1979 TO THE CONGRESS OF THE UNITED STATES AND TO THE GOVERNORS AND LEGISLATURES OF WASHINGTON, OREGON, CALIFORNIA, IDAHO, AND ALASKA Pacific Marine Fisheries Commission 528 S.W. Mill Street Portland, Oregon 97201 July 8, 1980 32nd Annual Report of the PACIFIC MARINE FISHERIES COMMISSION FOR THE YEAR 1979 PREFACE The Pacific Marine Fisheries Commission was created in 1947 with the consent of Congress. The Commission serves five member States: Alaska, California, Idaho, Oregon and Washington. The purpose of this Compact, as stated in its Goal and Objectives, is to promote the wise management, utilization, and development of fisheries of mutual concern, and to develop a joint program of protection, enhancement, and prevention of physical waste of such fisheries. The advent of the Fishery Conservation and Management Act {FCMA) of 1976 and amendments thereto has caused spectacular and continuing changes in the management of marine fisheries in the United States. The FCMA created the Fishery Conservation Zone (FCZ) between 3 and 200 nautical miles offshore, established 8 Regional Fishery Management Councils with authority to develop fishery management plans within the FCZ, and granted the Secretary of Commerce the power to regulate both domestic and foreign fishing fleets within the FCZ. The FCMA greatly modified fishery management roles at state, interstate, national and international levels. The Pacific Marine Fisheries Commission recognized early that its operational role would change as a result of possible functional overlaps with the two regional fishery management councils established on the Pacific Coast. On the one hand, the FCMA provides non-voting Council membership to the Executive Directors of the interstate Marine Fisheries Commissions, thus assuring active participation as the Councils deliberate on fishery matters of concern to the States.
    [Show full text]
  • Why International Catch Shares Won't Save Ocean Biodiversity
    Michigan Journal of Environmental & Administrative Law Volume 2 Issue 2 2013 Why International Catch Shares Won't Save Ocean Biodiversity Holly Doremus University of California, Berkeley Follow this and additional works at: https://repository.law.umich.edu/mjeal Part of the Environmental Law Commons, International Law Commons, International Trade Law Commons, and the Natural Resources Law Commons Recommended Citation Holly Doremus, Why International Catch Shares Won't Save Ocean Biodiversity, 2 MICH. J. ENVTL. & ADMIN. L. 385 (2013). Available at: https://repository.law.umich.edu/mjeal/vol2/iss2/3 This Article is brought to you for free and open access by the Journals at University of Michigan Law School Scholarship Repository. It has been accepted for inclusion in Michigan Journal of Environmental & Administrative Law by an authorized editor of University of Michigan Law School Scholarship Repository. For more information, please contact [email protected]. Doremus_Final_Web_Ready_FINAL_12May2013 7/18/2013 4:24 PM WHY INTERNATIONAL CATCH SHARES WON’T SAVE OCEAN BIODIVERSITY Holly Doremus* Skepticism about the efficacy and efficiency of regulatory approaches has produced a wave of enthusiasm for market-based strategies for dealing with environmental conflicts. In the fisheries context, the most prominent of these strategies is the use of “catch shares,” which assign specific proportions of the total allowable catch to individuals who are then free to trade them with others. Catch shares are now in wide use domestically within many nations, and there are increasing calls for implementation of internationally tradable catch shares. Based on a review of theory, empirical evidence, and two contexts in which catch shares have been proposed, this Article explains why international catch shares are not likely to arrest the decline of ocean biodiversity.
    [Show full text]
  • Annual Report of Survey-Inventory Activities 1 July 1988-30 June 1989 .....ELK
    Alaska Department of Fish and Game Division of Wildlife Conservation Federal Aid in Wildlife Restoration Annual Report of Survey-Inventory Activities 1 July 1988-30 June 1989 .....ELK- Compiled and edited by Sid 0. Morsan, Publications Technician Vol XX, Part ill Project W-23-2, Study 13.0 May 1990 STATE OF ALASKA Steve Cowper, Governor DEPARTMENT OF FISH AND GAME Don W. Collinsworth, Commissioner DIVISION OF WILDLIFE CONSERVATION W. Lewis Pamplin, Jr., Director W. Bruce Dinneford, Acting Planning Chief Persons intending to cite this material should obtain prior permis­ sion from the author(s) and/or the Alaska Department of Fish and Game. Because most reports deal with preliminary results of conti­ nuing studies, conclusions are tentative and should be identified as such. Due credit will be appreciated. Additional copies of this report, or reports on other species covered in this series may be obtained from: Publications Technician ADF&G, Wildlife Conservation P.O. Box 3-2000 Juneau, AK 99802 (907) 465-4190 The Alaska Department of Fish & Game operates all of its public pro­ grams and activities free from discrimination on the basis of race, color, national origin, age, or handicap. Because the department receives federal funding, any person who believes he or she has been discriminated against should write to: O.E.O., U.S. Department of the Interior, Washington, D.C. 20240. TABLE OF CONTENTS .. ) Game Management Unit Map. • . • . • • .I . • ii Statewide Harvest and Population status • .iii Game Management Unit/Geographical Description GMU 3 - Islands of the Petersburg, Wrangell, and Kake areas • . • . • • . 1 GMU 8 - Kodiak, Afognak, and adjacent islands.
    [Show full text]
  • Seafood Traceability for Fisheries Compliance – Country- Level Support for Catch Documentation Schemes
    ISSN 2070-7010 FAO 619 FISHERIES AND AQUACULTURE TECHNICAL PAPER 619 Seafood traceability for fisheries compliance Country-level support for catch documentation schemes Seafood traceability for fisheries compliance This document explores ways in which individual countries in seafood supply chains can, in their capacities as coastal, flag, port, processing or end-market states, contribute to maximizing the effectiveness of catch documentation schemes. The focus is on the traceability of seafood consignments, but the authors also explore other important compliance mechanisms that are not directly related to traceability but – that support the effective implementation of catch documentation schemes at the Country-level support for catch documentation schemes country level. The document explains which traceability mechanisms are built into catch documentation schemes, and which additional support mechanisms must be provided by individual countries along seafood supply chains. The study finds that traditional fisheries monitoring, inspection and sanctioning mechanisms are of primary importance with regard to flag, coastal and end-market states, whereas effective country-level traceability mechanisms are critical of particular importance in port and processing states. ISBN 978-92-5-130040-4 978 9251 300404 FAO I8183EN/1/11.17 Cover photograph: Weighing and recording of catch to be transhipped off a longline fishing vessel. Noro, Solomon Islands. © Francisco Blaha (Photo serves an illustrative purpose and was not taken in the context of IUU fishing)
    [Show full text]
  • Guidance & Best Practices for Federally-Managed Fisheries
    DISCUSSION DRAFT Electronic Monitoring and Electronic Reporting: Guidance & Best Practices for Federally-Managed Fisheries National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration National Marine Fisheries Service in collaboration with Regional Fishery Management Councils Interstate Marine Fisheries Commissions State Marine Fisheries Agencies Tribes Commercial and Recreational Fishermen Fishing Community Organizations Environmental and Non-Governmental Organizations Electronic Technology Service Providers August 2013 EM/ER Discussion Draft Page ii Foreword What is a “Discussion Draft”? A discussion draft is a draft work in progress intended to stimulate reader thought and to extract reader’s reaction to a topic. The purpose is to mine reader’s additional ideas and contributions for completion of a final document. What is the intended use for this document? The objective of the discussion draft is to promote discussion and thinking within regions and across regions about electronic monitoring (EM) and electronic reporting (ER). Our collective goal for the final document, scheduled for completion this Fall, is to help managers and stakeholders consider the questions of how EM/ER tools can help contribute to a more cost-effective and sustainable collection of fishery dependent data in our federally- managed fisheries. Are these Mandatory Requirements? No. The guidance in the document is not prescriptive or regulatory in nature and is offered simply as preliminary advice and suggested best practices. As consideration of EM/ER proceeds in the eight Council regions it is hoped that additional feedback and guidance will be submitted for addition to this document over time as a “living document” to improve the knowledge base and information available to assist decision makers.
    [Show full text]
  • Strategic Framework for Fishery Monitoring and Catch Reporting in the Pacific Fisheries
    Strategic Framework for Fishery Monitoring and Catch Reporting in the Pacific Fisheries Fisheries and Oceans Canada Pacific Region Fisheries and Aquaculture Management Final March 2012 Table of Contents 1. Introduction 1 Policy context 1 Key drivers for change 2 The current status of monitoring and reporting 5 A risk‐based strategic framework 7 2. Goal and Guiding Principles 8 Goal 9 Principle 1: Conservation and sustainable use 9 Principle 2: Consistency and transparency 10 Principle 3: Tailored requirements 11 Principle 4: Shared accountability and access 11 Principle 5: Cost‐effectiveness 12 3. Strategic Approach 12 Strategy 1: Monitoring and Reporting Requirements 13 Strategy 2: Monitoring and reporting programs 16 Strategy 3: Data management 17 Strategy 4: Other program support 18 Strategy 5: Integrated Compliance Management 18 Strategy 6: Continual improvement 19 5. Summary and Next Steps 19 References 22 Appendix 1 24 Appendix 2 26 D 1. Introduction Faced with a myriad of challenges, including climate change, declining fish stocks, reduced economic viability, an evolving global marketplace, and heightened competition for aquatic resources, Canada’s Pacific fisheries are undergoing reform. Demands for sustainable management that considers the larger ecosystem, respects Aboriginal rights, strengthens engagement of resource users in decision‐making, and finds solutions to allocate scarce resources are putting pressure on governments and fishery interests alike. In many fisheries, the distrust of reported catch data and inconsistent monitoring has helped to fuel conflicts between harvesting groups. Reliable, timely and accessible fisheries information is the foundation of sustainable management. While the importance of good catch data is certainly not new to the Pacific Region, the worldwide trend towards sustainable fisheries and supporting management practices is calling for significant improvements in monitoring and reporting.
    [Show full text]
  • Lobster Review
    Seafood Watch Seafood Report American lobster Homarus americanus (Image © Monterey Bay Aquarium) Northeast Region Final Report February 2, 2006 Matthew Elliott Independent Consultant Monterey Bay Aquarium American Lobster About Seafood Watch® and the Seafood Reports Monterey Bay Aquarium’s Seafood Watch® program evaluates the ecological sustainability of wild-caught and farmed seafood commonly found in the United States marketplace. Seafood Watch® defines sustainable seafood as originating from sources, whether wild-caught or farmed, which can maintain or increase production in the long-term without jeopardizing the structure or function of affected ecosystems. Seafood Watch® makes its science-based recommendations available to the public in the form of regional pocket guides that can be downloaded from the Internet (seafoodwatch.org) or obtained from the Seafood Watch® program by emailing [email protected]. The program’s goals are to raise awareness of important ocean conservation issues and empower seafood consumers and businesses to make choices for healthy oceans. Each sustainability recommendation on the regional pocket guides is supported by a Seafood Report. Each report synthesizes and analyzes the most current ecological, fisheries and ecosystem science on a species, then evaluates this information against the program’s conservation ethic to arrive at a recommendation of “Best Choices,” “Good Alternatives,” or “Avoid.” The detailed evaluation methodology is available upon request. In producing the Seafood Reports, Seafood Watch® seeks out research published in academic, peer-reviewed journals whenever possible. Other sources of information include government technical publications, fishery management plans and supporting documents, and other scientific reviews of ecological sustainability. Seafood Watch® Fisheries Research Analysts also communicate regularly with ecologists, fisheries and aquaculture scientists, and members of industry and conservation organizations when evaluating fisheries and aquaculture practices.
    [Show full text]
  • Vessel Monitoring Systems and Their Role in Fisheries Management and Monitoring, Control and Surveillance
    Vessel Monitoring Systems and their Role in Fisheries Management and Monitoring, Control and Surveillance 1.0 Vessel Monitoring Systems: Overview Fisheries managers started utilizing Vessel Monitoring Systems (VMS) in the 1990si to track the locations and monitor the activities of fishing vessels in order to bolster the efficacy of fisheries management measures. This capability also enhanced enforcement capacity by facilitating more effective and cost efficient enforcement actions by providing a level of monitoring, control and surveillance (MCS) not possible with traditional and more conventional methods of aerial and surface surveillance. Satellite-based VMS are described by the United Nations’ Food and Agriculture Organization (FAO) as: “…comprised of several components. Each participating vessel must carry a VMS unit. This shipboard electronic equipment is installed permanently onboard a fishing vessel and assigned a unique identifier. Most shipboard VMS equipment types use satellite communication systems that have an integrated Global Positioning System (GPS). The system calculates the unit’s position and sends a data report to shoreside users. The standard data report includes the VMS unit’s unique identifier, date, time and position in latitude and longitude…” Initially, VMS was used as an instrument for flag States to track the activities of their own domestic fishing vessels, and for coastal States to monitor foreign-flagged fishing vessels licensed to operate within their Exclusive Economic Zone (EEZ). The United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea provided the legal basis for this as it gave coastal States the primary responsibility for managing all living marine resources within their 200 nautical mile EEZ. The United Nations (UN) Fish Stocks Agreement specifically called for the implementation of VMS by flag States in the framework of sub- regional, regional and global agreementsii.
    [Show full text]
  • Fact Sheet the Conservation of Migratorywhale Sharks SHARK
    Memorandum of Understanding on Sharks MOU Species Fact Sheet the Conservation of MigratoryWHALE Sharks SHARK WHALE SHARK REQUIN-BALEINE TIBURÓN BALLENA Fact Sheet Whale Shark Rhincodon typus WHALE SHARK Class: Chondrichthyes Order: Orectolobiforme Family : Rhincodontidae Species: Rhincodon typus 0 Illustration: © Marc Dando Sharks MOU Species Fact Sheet Sharks MOU Species Fact Sheet WHALE SHARK WHALE SHARK © Shark MOU Advisory Committee This fact sheet was produced by the Advisory Committee of the Memorandum of Understanding on the Conservation of Migratory Sharks (Sharks MOU). For further information contact: John Carlson, Ph.D. Research Fish Biologist, NOAA Fisheries Service-Southeast Fisheries Science Center Panama City, 1 [email protected] Sharks MOU Species Fact Sheet WHALE SHARK 1. Biology The Whale Shark (Rhincodon typus) is the world’s largest living fish (<20m), found globally in tropical and warm temperate waters (Rowat and Brooks 2012). Coastal feeding aggregations are known from these filter feeders, where they exploit seasonal productivity of pelagic invertebrates, fish spawning events, and small schooling fishes. Although encounters are rarely associated with surface temperatures below 21°C, Whale Sharks are capable of withstanding temperatures as low as 4.2°C during dives to up to 1,900 m (Colman 1997; Duffy 2002; Afonso et al. 2014; Tyminski et al. 2015). Their reproductive ecology is poorly understood but associated with slow growth and late maturity and therefore a limited reproductive capacity. 2. Distribution Whale Sharks are distributed circum-tropically from approximately 30°N to 35°S with seasonal variations (Rowat and Brooks 2012; Sequeira et al. 2014). Several aggregation sites are distributed over all three ocean basins, with major subpopulations in the Atlantic Ocean and Indo-Pacific (Sequeira et al.
    [Show full text]
  • Critical Role of Animal Science Research in Food Security and Sustainability
    This PDF is available from The National Academies Press at http://www.nap.edu/catalog.php?record_id=19000 Critical Role of Animal Science Research in Food Security and Sustainability ISBN Committee on Considerations for the Future of Animal Science Research; 978-0-309-31644-6 Science and Technology for Sustainability Program; Policy and Global Affairs; Board on Agriculture and Natural Resources; Division on Earth and 360 pages Life Sciences; National Research Council 6 x 9 PAPERBACK (2015) Visit the National Academies Press online and register for... Instant access to free PDF downloads of titles from the NATIONAL ACADEMY OF SCIENCES NATIONAL ACADEMY OF ENGINEERING INSTITUTE OF MEDICINE NATIONAL RESEARCH COUNCIL 10% off print titles Custom notification of new releases in your field of interest Special offers and discounts Distribution, posting, or copying of this PDF is strictly prohibited without written permission of the National Academies Press. Unless otherwise indicated, all materials in this PDF are copyrighted by the National Academy of Sciences. Request reprint permission for this book Copyright © National Academy of Sciences. All rights reserved. Critical Role of Animal Science Research in Food Security and Sustainability Critical Role of Animal Science Research in Food Security and Sustainability Committee on Considerations for the Future of Animal Science Research Science and Technology for Sustainability Program Policy and Global Affairs Board on Agriculture and Natural Resources Division on Earth and Life Studies Copyright © National Academy of Sciences. All rights reserved. Critical Role of Animal Science Research in Food Security and Sustainability THE NATIONAL ACADEMIES PRESS 500 Fifth Street, NW Washington, DC 20001 NOTICE: The project that is the subject of this report was approved by the Governing Board of the National Research Council, whose members are drawn from the councils of the National Academy of Sciences, the National Academy of Engineering, and the Institute of Medicine.
    [Show full text]
  • Sustainable Fish Secure Future: An
    Sustainable Fish Secure Food od Su Seafo pply C ild ha W in e on th V of a t n n co e u m s v s e e r s I s s l A a n n d A s W ie it er h sh a F Fi oc le us nab on Local Sustai 1 Acknowledgements LOS would like to thank the McConnell Foundation for their generous support to fund this assessment. Ken Meter from Crossroads Resource Center was invaluable in providing insight to the development of survey instruments and helping to analyze the results. This assessment would not have been possible without the fishing associations and companies that wrote letters of support in proposing this project, and the time and thoughtful consideration they offered in completing the surveys and participating in interviews. We express our appreciation to: the Canadian Highly Migratory Species Foundation, the Canadian Pacific Sardine Association, the Canadian Sablefish Association, the West Coast Scallop Harvesters Association and the Pacific Prawn Fishermen’s Association. Thank you to the Ocean Wise program for reaching out to their Vancouver Island partners to participate. LOS also thanks all the individual suppliers, retailers, chefs and fishermen for their insights and responses which helped it to assess the current seafood supply chain on Vancouver Island. The report would not have been possible without their generosity in sharing their time, information and stories. Any shortcomings, oversights or errors remain with the Living Oceans Society staff who worked on this assessment: Kelly Roebuck, Will Soltau and Mary Lindsay. Cover photo credits Prawn fisherman: Living Oceans Society B.C.
    [Show full text]
  • Valuation of Ecosystem Services from Shellfish Enhancement: a Review of the Literature
    Valuation of Ecosystem Services from Shellfish Enhancement: A Review of the Literature Prepared for NOAA National Ocean Services: EPA REServ Program May 2012 Prepared by Preparers Team Member Project Role Donald M. Schug Report Author Katharine Wellman Project Manager Please cite as: Northern Economics, Inc. Valuation of Ecosystem Services from Shellfish Enhancement: A Review of the Literature. Prepared for NOAA National Ocean Services: EPA REServ Program. May 2012. Contents Section Page 1 Introduction ............................................................................................................................. 1 1.1 Why the Production of Ecosystem Services May Be Suboptimal .......................................... 2 1.2 How Economic Valuation of Ecosystem Services Offers a Possible Solution ......................... 2 2 Description of Ecosystem Services .............................................................................................. 4 2.1 Provisioning Services........................................................................................................... 4 2.2 Regulating Services ............................................................................................................. 6 2.2.1 Water Quality Maintenance ................................................................................................ 6 2.2.2 Protection of Shorelines and Sediment Stabilization ............................................................ 7 2.2.3 Carbon Sequestration ........................................................................................................
    [Show full text]